100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: The Third Testament | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
No information is either all true or all false. None. You may live in a black and white world Eljay but this is not a black and white world. Another platitude. So it's not all true that you are a woman? Do you have a penis? It's just ridiculous the silly, thoughtless things that pass as beliefs in these forums. I'm sure you will have a great response to this and I won't pretend to know what it is...probably something like "Gender is an illusion, it changes with every life we live in the holographic universe". Spider, please don't be ridiculous. I am talking about a body of information like a book. I am not talking about single statements of agreement like whether a person is male or female. What Eljay is proposing is that I should believe that the Bible is either true in its entirety or completely false. That is illogical and ridiculous. He also proposes that if a body of information is true, then every detail should be considered to be true, and if it is false then every detail must be considered false. That is a foolish and very limiting way to evaluate information. I don't think I will subscribe to that method. Thank you very much but no thanks. You can if you want. That is not how I evaluate information. It is the same as saying that if you ever told a lie, then everything you ever utter is to be considered a lie. JB Actually Jeannie, what I am proposing is that if you are going to establish a premise about a biblical topic - in this case, the Nephilim - than you should be bound by the parameters of the source of your reference. Here, you wish to state that the Nephilim are somehow walkng the earth to this day. This contradicts the reliability of the source you are wishing to quote - because to accept that the Nephilim existed through logic, you must conclude they could not have survived the flood. And since the reference to both the Nephilim and the flood are not only in the same book of the bible - but the same chapter, it is asking too much to accept that you believe one is true while the other isn't. THAT would be illogical and rediculous. To assume that there is a possibility that the Nephilim existed, and exists today - but the flood is a myth would indicate that your original premise to support the Nephilim comes from an un-reliable source and is unacceptable as an accepted premise. It's not a matter of thinking one could be possible and the other not. Especially in the circumstance being discussed. For you to extend that to me claiming it's all or nothing when referencing a book of any sort is a Strawman argument at best. I made no such claim. Just a point to the specific argument at hand. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i believe a flood occurred, the problem is with - did it occur around the globe? I believe it did not - the reference to the "whole world" was not a reference to the whole planet, just the world known at the time of it's writing. Therefore the Nephilim could easily have survived in other places besides the Mediterranean area. Well - since this is a biblical concept, you're ignoring Genesis 6:7 which essentially says that God intends to wipe mankind, animals, creatures from the ground, and birds of the air - off the face of the earth. That would tend to account for just about everything that wasn't on that Ark. Sort of trumps your interpretation. nope not at all - think  eljay, - where was man located then? upon "all" the known earth as we know it today? of course not it was there in the beginning where the flood took place not the entire globe, unless you believe that man in such a short time had populated the entire planet as we know it today, do you? since were only talking a "few generations of man at that point this does not hold truth in my estimation of what i read. This would hold true for other life also, why bother flooding the whole globe? Had all the animals present in the garden and vicinity produced at such speed that the inhabited the entire earth by then? Did Adam really name all the animals as we know of today? Or just the ones present in the garden? Your thinking is to modernistic eljay, put yourself in the time and circumstances that were - not present day times. If you want to believe it's true, be my guest, but it's not in my opinion.
Even Paul when stating the gospel had been preached around the world did not mean the whole globe, only the world that was know by him and all others 'AT THE TIME" No - but the "earth was covered". How do you get around water covering the highest mountain top? Are you thinking these people lived in a fish bowl? And the idea that they hid under ground... Well if they got there, for sure the water would. Who's not thinking here? What you are asking me to do is search the inner depths of my mind to find an absurd circumstance that extends beyond the mirzculous in order to prove the miraculous couldn't exist. What exactly is it you'd like me to think? ok eljay funches, let's step back a pace or two here, i have to find out if you believe the world was created in a literal 6 day-24 hr. period of time or not? In otherwords do you hold to a literal - 144 hour creation? ( 6X24= 144 hrs.) I'm not sure what that has to do with anything - but I tend to think that the "young earth" is moe acceptable than an "old one" but that is not to say that a day is not like a thousand years and could be longer. What I do not accept is that a day is like a billion years. That is just "pick-a-number" science to me. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No information is either all true or all false. None. You may live in a black and white world Eljay but this is not a black and white world. Another platitude. So it's not all true that you are a woman? Do you have a penis? It's just ridiculous the silly, thoughtless things that pass as beliefs in these forums. I'm sure you will have a great response to this and I won't pretend to know what it is...probably something like "Gender is an illusion, it changes with every life we live in the holographic universe". Spider, please don't be ridiculous. I am talking about a body of information like a book. I am not talking about single statements of agreement like whether a person is male or female. What Eljay is proposing is that I should believe that the Bible is either true in its entirety or completely false. That is illogical and ridiculous. He also proposes that if a body of information is true, then every detail should be considered to be true, and if it is false then every detail must be considered false. That is a foolish and very limiting way to evaluate information. I don't think I will subscribe to that method. Thank you very much but no thanks. You can if you want. That is not how I evaluate information. It is the same as saying that if you ever told a lie, then everything you ever utter is to be considered a lie. JB Me? Being ridiculous? You stated "No information is either all true or all false" and "I am talking about a body of information like a book". What you are claiming is that you are omniscient. That you know the contents of every book in existence and you know if any of those books contains falsehoods. Since you believe in alien life, your claim doesn't just cover the earth, but all planets. I'm being ridiculous for doubting your claim of omniscience? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Eljay" does bring up a good point that can't be overlooked ..The Flood ...clearly God meant to drown everyone that wasn't on the ark and had already foreseen that it would take exactly 40 days and nights to accomplish this ..so no matter where anyone hid including the Nephilim the water would find them
If there was a flood, the people had no way of knowing if it was covering the entire globe, they just assumed it was because they assumed and thought the world was flat and there was water every direction they looked. If you go out into the ocean you can see the same thing. Water in every direction you look, no land to be seen. You might be convinced that the world was all water. Also, some of the people may have been saved and taken to underground cities along with the Nephilim. There can be no way to really be sure. People like to think they all got killed in the flood, but I seriously doubt that. If it weren't for the fact that they are mentioned briefly in the Bible Christians would scoff at their existence entirely. But because they are of the mind set to believe anything in the Bible they have to admit they existed and believe in them. JB JennieBean this is according to the bible ..to discuss the belief logically nothing in the belief should be dismiss unless one can show that it's a falsehood or a contradiction or show a third option ..so according to the bible there was a great flood that possibly drown the Nephilim ..or maybe you can debate that some of them could have survived because maybe Noah or someone on the ark was a Nephilm as i stated to eljay, Funch: nope not at all - think eljay, - where was man located then? upon "all" the known earth as we know it today? of course not it was there in the beginning where the flood took place not the entire globe, unless you believe that man in such a short time had populated the entire planet as we know it today, do you? since were only talking a "few generations of man at that point this does not hold truth in my estimation of what i read. This would hold true for other life also, why bother flooding the whole globe? Had all the animals present in the garden and vicinity produced at such speed that the inhabited the entire earth by then? Did Adam really name all the animals as we know of today? Or just the ones present in the garden? Your thinking is to modernistic eljay, put yourself in the time and circumstances that were - not present day times. If you want to believe it's true, be my guest, but it's not in my opinion. Even Paul when stating the gospel had been preached around the world did not mean the whole globe, only the world that was know by him and all others 'AT THE TIME" therefore it becomes a moot point for debate as to whether or not the flood destroyed everything on the "entire planet" IMHO "Tribo" you may be right or you may be wrong but you just can't assume you are right and claim moot-ism..all we can do is to go with according to the bible but if you feel that the bible is wrong in certain instances then that is exactly what this thread is about but the point has to be debated first so that it can be accurately place into The Third Testament if you and JennieBean believe that Nephilim survived then this should be debated logical with according to the bible along side with the evidence you have..but even if you have no direct evidence you can still debate the point into a logical conclusion .. so since the Flood is in the bible it can not be dismiss but you can debate if the flood actually cover the entire world and/or drown all nephilim ..but you also have to realize that some things are absolute ..like the hand of God drowning everyone ...God ususally don't make mistakes when they make a committent to kill granted Funch, i apologize, i will still stand by my post, but will give others the chance to refute, to continue though, God could have flooded the whole earth i will grant that as you say it is supposedly his right to do so, but the question remains - WHY? - if there was no mankind to drown outside of the area populated by mankind at that early time? unless you believe as some there were 2 different creations or creation stories, do you? Even then since supposedly the first boat was built in that area by Noah, how did the rest of the world get populated so quickly? I'll wait for response's, but i doubt i will get any Funch, it just isn't logical to think that way or believe such a thing, oh well. plus it still does not answer the question of why all aquatic life would have to die if it was really being detroyed because of mankinds behavior. What harm had the jellyfish or other fish done to deserve death for the actions of man? and why would WATER all of a sudden DROWN them? Doubt you'll get a response? Please. You're assumption is that the purpose of the flood was to eliminate man. Your premise that man was centrally located and therefore megates the need to flood the whole earh is a false one - because the bible states that ALL of the creatures on the earth were to be wiped out. If a single sparrow flew to the center of Nebraska (as we know it to be now) - That's enough to cover the entire earth. And it makes no reference about the "fish" drowning. Just the chemical dillusion of the ocean due to the extensive addition of fresh water (rain that is) would be enough for them to perish. Put a tuna in a swimming pool and see how long it lasts. Now - you were saying.... Why do you believe that it's my assumption that man was centrally located - add up the generations of which are stated to and including Noah, approx 7,443 yrs, if birth rates were even 10 times the normal for today and lets say 100 children per family there would only have been 74,000 people. even if a thousand per family, it would only have been 740,000 people living in communities not spread out all over the place for the largest part, that does not even equate to the population of Columbus Ohio yet alone the whole world, take a look at early census' done by the romans - at the time of christ - what were the populatins then?, your statement does not hold up to historical statements written in ancient times.. I do not believe the "whole earth" was populated, just the vicinity i spoke of. you may believe as you will. As to the fish or aquatic life, if your correct and all was "DESTROYED" then how does it continue to be now? was it resurrected? Did it just spring up again automatically into existence? IF all aquatic life ceased to exist, then why do we have it now or any time past the flood? Or do you subscribe to darwin's theory to explain this? I read nowhere in the book that god "RE_CREATED" life in the water eljay, if i have missed this please show me. As to "all" the animals on Noah's ark - what is meant by "ALL ANIMALS"? all we know of today, or what were present then? if you mean then - tell me how many and what kinds were there? 2 butterflies, 2 bees, 2 praying mantises, etc. ad infinitum ad naseum, and how big was this arc?? two and two don't make 4 here eljay. even if we think in terms of the very first of animal life, just one species of each not black bears and polar bears etc, all the original species we see today would not fit the dimensions of the arc. if so draw me a picture of how you think they were crammed into those dimensions outlined for the arks size there. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No information is either all true or all false. None. You may live in a black and white world Eljay but this is not a black and white world. Another platitude. So it's not all true that you are a woman? Do you have a penis? It's just ridiculous the silly, thoughtless things that pass as beliefs in these forums. I'm sure you will have a great response to this and I won't pretend to know what it is...probably something like "Gender is an illusion, it changes with every life we live in the holographic universe". Spider, please don't be ridiculous. I am talking about a body of information like a book. I am not talking about single statements of agreement like whether a person is male or female. What Eljay is proposing is that I should believe that the Bible is either true in its entirety or completely false. That is illogical and ridiculous. He also proposes that if a body of information is true, then every detail should be considered to be true, and if it is false then every detail must be considered false. That is a foolish and very limiting way to evaluate information. I don't think I will subscribe to that method. Thank you very much but no thanks. You can if you want. That is not how I evaluate information. It is the same as saying that if you ever told a lie, then everything you ever utter is to be considered a lie. JB Actually Jeannie, what I am proposing is that if you are going to establish a premise about a biblical topic - in this case, the Nephilim - than you should be bound by the parameters of the source of your reference. Here, you wish to state that the Nephilim are somehow walkng the earth to this day. This contradicts the reliability of the source you are wishing to quote - because to accept that the Nephilim existed through logic, you must conclude they could not have survived the flood. And since the reference to both the Nephilim and the flood are not only in the same book of the bible - but the same chapter, it is asking too much to accept that you believe one is true while the other isn't. THAT would be illogical and rediculous. To assume that there is a possibility that the Nephilim existed, and exists today - but the flood is a myth would indicate that your original premise to support the Nephilim comes from an un-reliable source and is unacceptable as an accepted premise. It's not a matter of thinking one could be possible and the other not. Especially in the circumstance being discussed. For you to extend that to me claiming it's all or nothing when referencing a book of any sort is a Strawman argument at best. I made no such claim. Just a point to the specific argument at hand. Eljay, Did you even read or understand my previous posts about the problem and possibilities of the flood and how people could have escaped it? Did you even read where I suggested that they had no way of knowing if the flood covered the entire globe? You never addressed those responses. Do you just pick certain statements I make and only respond to them? If you want to make requirements on me about my personal conclusions and theories that these human--alien(angel) hybrids still exist on the earth today, which I believe they do, --then you are telling me that if I use the Bible at all I have to believe and accept every book, every word, and every interpretation in the Bible, and I have to accept all the stuff about the flood. No I do not. Excuse me for giving the Bible a thread of credibility. I have always used every kind of information available to make my conclusions including the Bible. What you are telling me is that I can't use the Bible at all if I don't believe the entire thing and your interpretations of the flood and what happened or what people thought happened. I do not assume that the flood is a myth. Where did I say that? I don't know if there was a flood, or if it covered the entire globe or just appeared to. I don't think it is logical that a flood happened all over the world at that time and science supports that belief. Forget the Bible then. Forget the references to Nephilim in the Bible then. Forget the flood. I still have concluded that alien-human hybrids exist in the world today. There is a lot of evidence to support that to include DNA evidence and people who admit that they are of the dragon race. They call themselves "royalty." JB |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No information is either all true or all false. None. You may live in a black and white world Eljay but this is not a black and white world. Another platitude. So it's not all true that you are a woman? Do you have a penis? It's just ridiculous the silly, thoughtless things that pass as beliefs in these forums. I'm sure you will have a great response to this and I won't pretend to know what it is...probably something like "Gender is an illusion, it changes with every life we live in the holographic universe". Spider, please don't be ridiculous. I am talking about a body of information like a book. I am not talking about single statements of agreement like whether a person is male or female. What Eljay is proposing is that I should believe that the Bible is either true in its entirety or completely false. That is illogical and ridiculous. He also proposes that if a body of information is true, then every detail should be considered to be true, and if it is false then every detail must be considered false. That is a foolish and very limiting way to evaluate information. I don't think I will subscribe to that method. Thank you very much but no thanks. You can if you want. That is not how I evaluate information. It is the same as saying that if you ever told a lie, then everything you ever utter is to be considered a lie. JB Actually Jeannie, what I am proposing is that if you are going to establish a premise about a biblical topic - in this case, the Nephilim - than you should be bound by the parameters of the source of your reference. Here, you wish to state that the Nephilim are somehow walkng the earth to this day. This contradicts the reliability of the source you are wishing to quote - because to accept that the Nephilim existed through logic, you must conclude they could not have survived the flood. And since the reference to both the Nephilim and the flood are not only in the same book of the bible - but the same chapter, it is asking too much to accept that you believe one is true while the other isn't. THAT would be illogical and rediculous. To assume that there is a possibility that the Nephilim existed, and exists today - but the flood is a myth would indicate that your original premise to support the Nephilim comes from an un-reliable source and is unacceptable as an accepted premise. It's not a matter of thinking one could be possible and the other not. Especially in the circumstance being discussed. For you to extend that to me claiming it's all or nothing when referencing a book of any sort is a Strawman argument at best. I made no such claim. Just a point to the specific argument at hand. Eljay, Did you even read or understand my previous posts about the problem and possibilities of the flood and how people could have escaped it? Did you even read where I suggested that they had no way of knowing if the flood covered the entire globe? You never addressed those responses. Do you just pick certain statements I make and only respond to them? If you want to make requirements on me about my personal conclusions and theories that these human--alien(angel) hybrids still exist on the earth today, which I believe they do, --then you are telling me that if I use the Bible at all I have to believe and accept every book, every word, and every interpretation in the Bible, and I have to accept all the stuff about the flood. No I do not. Excuse me for giving the Bible a thread of credibility. I have always used every kind of information available to make my conclusions including the Bible. What you are telling me is that I can't use the Bible at all if I don't believe the entire thing and your interpretations of the flood and what happened or what people thought happened. I do not assume that the flood is a myth. Where did I say that? I don't know if there was a flood, or if it covered the entire globe or just appeared to. I don't think it is logical that a flood happened all over the world at that time and science supports that belief. Forget the Bible then. Forget the references to Nephilim in the Bible then. Forget the flood. I still have concluded that alien-human hybrids exist in the world today. There is a lot of evidence to support that to include DNA evidence and people who admit that they are of the dragon race. They call themselves "royalty." JB many extraterrestrials come and go through means other than spaceships, if they enter from another universe or dimension they could easily escape any floods or earthquakes or anyhing else if need be. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No information is either all true or all false. None. You may live in a black and white world Eljay but this is not a black and white world. Another platitude. So it's not all true that you are a woman? Do you have a penis? It's just ridiculous the silly, thoughtless things that pass as beliefs in these forums. I'm sure you will have a great response to this and I won't pretend to know what it is...probably something like "Gender is an illusion, it changes with every life we live in the holographic universe". Spider, please don't be ridiculous. I am talking about a body of information like a book. I am not talking about single statements of agreement like whether a person is male or female. What Eljay is proposing is that I should believe that the Bible is either true in its entirety or completely false. That is illogical and ridiculous. He also proposes that if a body of information is true, then every detail should be considered to be true, and if it is false then every detail must be considered false. That is a foolish and very limiting way to evaluate information. I don't think I will subscribe to that method. Thank you very much but no thanks. You can if you want. That is not how I evaluate information. It is the same as saying that if you ever told a lie, then everything you ever utter is to be considered a lie. JB Actually Jeannie, what I am proposing is that if you are going to establish a premise about a biblical topic - in this case, the Nephilim - than you should be bound by the parameters of the source of your reference. Here, you wish to state that the Nephilim are somehow walkng the earth to this day. This contradicts the reliability of the source you are wishing to quote - because to accept that the Nephilim existed through logic, you must conclude they could not have survived the flood. And since the reference to both the Nephilim and the flood are not only in the same book of the bible - but the same chapter, it is asking too much to accept that you believe one is true while the other isn't. THAT would be illogical and rediculous. To assume that there is a possibility that the Nephilim existed, and exists today - but the flood is a myth would indicate that your original premise to support the Nephilim comes from an un-reliable source and is unacceptable as an accepted premise. It's not a matter of thinking one could be possible and the other not. Especially in the circumstance being discussed. For you to extend that to me claiming it's all or nothing when referencing a book of any sort is a Strawman argument at best. I made no such claim. Just a point to the specific argument at hand. Eljay, Did you even read or understand my previous posts about the problem and possibilities of the flood and how people could have escaped it? Did you even read where I suggested that they had no way of knowing if the flood covered the entire globe? You never addressed those responses. Do you just pick certain statements I make and only respond to them? If you want to make requirements on me about my personal conclusions and theories that these human--alien(angel) hybrids still exist on the earth today, which I believe they do, --then you are telling me that if I use the Bible at all I have to believe and accept every book, every word, and every interpretation in the Bible, and I have to accept all the stuff about the flood. No I do not. Excuse me for giving the Bible a thread of credibility. I have always used every kind of information available to make my conclusions including the Bible. What you are telling me is that I can't use the Bible at all if I don't believe the entire thing and your interpretations of the flood and what happened or what people thought happened. I do not assume that the flood is a myth. Where did I say that? I don't know if there was a flood, or if it covered the entire globe or just appeared to. I don't think it is logical that a flood happened all over the world at that time and science supports that belief. Forget the Bible then. Forget the references to Nephilim in the Bible then. Forget the flood. I still have concluded that alien-human hybrids exist in the world today. There is a lot of evidence to support that to include DNA evidence and people who admit that they are of the dragon race. They call themselves "royalty." JB I don't dispute evidence in the Geologic Record of Catastrophic flooding throughout Geologic Time. I have no doubt that such a flood could have wiped out almost all, if not all of mankind. Many other life-forms have been fossilized, collected, carbon dated and given ages from scientific perspective. We haven't that kind of Fossil Record for Modern Man (haven't inhabited the Earth long enough to even come close to replenishing our Earth's oil supply  ).
So, the Earth's over-all crust is thinner, the oceans deeper now and more widespread, making the surface area exactly the same (just more volume of water)? I can get behind that thinking. Oceanic Crust is thinner because it is closer to the time it was produced (Younger and closer to it's source -> magma), as opposed to thicker Continental Crust, created long before.... So, the volume increases of the oceans' water and thinning of the oceanic crust equalize over-all volume. Crust gets recycled back into the system when subducted back down under Continental Crust. It is, in a sense, like reincarnating crust. 
This is quite a dynamic system and one that I've studied extensively. This theory I never questioned... it always fit until I read a paper on the possibility of an Expanding Earth. It didn't completely change my mind, but merely opened my eyes to other possibilities... Which is a lot like what we see on these forums. Each person contributes pieces of the puzzle... each piece w/ complete possibility to be in concordance w/ scriptures. Humankind wouldn't have been given the brain capacity to learn what we have if we weren't supposed to continually question and learn. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No information is either all true or all false. None. You may live in a black and white world Eljay but this is not a black and white world. Another platitude. So it's not all true that you are a woman? Do you have a penis? It's just ridiculous the silly, thoughtless things that pass as beliefs in these forums. I'm sure you will have a great response to this and I won't pretend to know what it is...probably something like "Gender is an illusion, it changes with every life we live in the holographic universe". Spider, please don't be ridiculous. I am talking about a body of information like a book. I am not talking about single statements of agreement like whether a person is male or female. What Eljay is proposing is that I should believe that the Bible is either true in its entirety or completely false. That is illogical and ridiculous. He also proposes that if a body of information is true, then every detail should be considered to be true, and if it is false then every detail must be considered false. That is a foolish and very limiting way to evaluate information. I don't think I will subscribe to that method. Thank you very much but no thanks. You can if you want. That is not how I evaluate information. It is the same as saying that if you ever told a lie, then everything you ever utter is to be considered a lie. JB Actually Jeannie, what I am proposing is that if you are going to establish a premise about a biblical topic - in this case, the Nephilim - than you should be bound by the parameters of the source of your reference. Here, you wish to state that the Nephilim are somehow walkng the earth to this day. This contradicts the reliability of the source you are wishing to quote - because to accept that the Nephilim existed through logic, you must conclude they could not have survived the flood. And since the reference to both the Nephilim and the flood are not only in the same book of the bible - but the same chapter, it is asking too much to accept that you believe one is true while the other isn't. THAT would be illogical and rediculous. To assume that there is a possibility that the Nephilim existed, and exists today - but the flood is a myth would indicate that your original premise to support the Nephilim comes from an un-reliable source and is unacceptable as an accepted premise. It's not a matter of thinking one could be possible and the other not. Especially in the circumstance being discussed. For you to extend that to me claiming it's all or nothing when referencing a book of any sort is a Strawman argument at best. I made no such claim. Just a point to the specific argument at hand. Eljay, Did you even read or understand my previous posts about the problem and possibilities of the flood and how people could have escaped it? Did you even read where I suggested that they had no way of knowing if the flood covered the entire globe? You never addressed those responses. Do you just pick certain statements I make and only respond to them? If you want to make requirements on me about my personal conclusions and theories that these human--alien(angel) hybrids still exist on the earth today, which I believe they do, --then you are telling me that if I use the Bible at all I have to believe and accept every book, every word, and every interpretation in the Bible, and I have to accept all the stuff about the flood. No I do not. Excuse me for giving the Bible a thread of credibility. I have always used every kind of information available to make my conclusions including the Bible. What you are telling me is that I can't use the Bible at all if I don't believe the entire thing and your interpretations of the flood and what happened or what people thought happened. I do not assume that the flood is a myth. Where did I say that? I don't know if there was a flood, or if it covered the entire globe or just appeared to. I don't think it is logical that a flood happened all over the world at that time and science supports that belief. Forget the Bible then. Forget the references to Nephilim in the Bible then. Forget the flood. I still have concluded that alien-human hybrids exist in the world today. There is a lot of evidence to support that to include DNA evidence and people who admit that they are of the dragon race. They call themselves "royalty." JB I don't dispute evidence in the Geologic Record of Catastrophic flooding throughout Geologic Time. I have no doubt that such a flood could have wiped out almost all, if not all of mankind. Many other life-forms have been fossilized, collected, carbon dated and given ages from scientific perspective. We haven't that kind of Fossil Record for Modern Man (haven't inhabited the Earth long enough to even come close to replenishing our Earth's oil supply ).
So, the Earth's over-all crust is thinner, the oceans deeper now and more widespread, making the surface area exactly the same (just more volume of water)? I can get behind that thinking. Oceanic Crust is thinner because it is closer to the time it was produced (Younger and closer to it's source -> magma), as opposed to thicker Continental Crust, created long before.... So, the volume increases of the oceans' water and thinning of the oceanic crust equalize over-all volume. Crust gets recycled back into the system when subducted back down under Continental Crust. It is, in a sense, like reincarnating crust.
This is quite a dynamic system and one that I've studied extensively. This theory I never questioned... it always fit until I read a paper on the possibility of an Expanding Earth. It didn't completely change my mind, but merely opened my eyes to other possibilities... Which is a lot like what we see on these forums. Each person contributes pieces of the puzzle... each piece w/ complete possibility to be in concordance w/ scriptures. Humankind wouldn't have been given the brain capacity to learn what we have if we weren't supposed to continually question and learn.  
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ok eljay funches, let's step back a pace or two here, i have to find out if you believe the world was created in a literal 6 day-24 hr. period of time or not? In otherwords do you hold to a literal - 144 hour creation? ( 6X24= 144 hrs.) "Tribo" if the bible said it was created in 6 days then that's what we have to use unless it can be shown otherwise ..also I'm wondering why it took God so long to create creation ..since a God has 'Free Will" and therefore not control by the laws of physics and can alter reality in a blink of an eye it should have taken God no more than 6 blinks to create creation not 6 days .. I wonder how long it would have took "I Dream Of Jennie" or Samantha from 'Bewitched" to eye blink or nose wiggle creation into existence |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ok eljay funches, let's step back a pace or two here, i have to find out if you believe the world was created in a literal 6 day-24 hr. period of time or not? In otherwords do you hold to a literal - 144 hour creation? ( 6X24= 144 hrs.) "Tribo" if the bible said it was created in 6 days then that's what we have to use unless it can be shown otherwise ..also I'm wondering why it took God so long to create creation ..since a God has 'Free Will" and therefore not control by the laws of physics and can alter reality in a blink of an eye it should have taken God no more than 6 blinks to create creation not 6 days .. I wonder how long it would have took "I Dream Of Jennie" or Samantha from 'Bewitched" to eye blink or nose wiggle creation into existence i agree Funches, but there are those hear that take the 144 hour creation as truth, eljay says it could mean a thousand years per day, TLW states that is a metaphor to really show that a day of rest was needed, so i have to know what is agreable to all here to discuss anthing further on the points i was making. sorry if you dont like it - tough funches! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ok eljay funches, let's step back a pace or two here, i have to find out if you believe the world was created in a literal 6 day-24 hr. period of time or not? In otherwords do you hold to a literal - 144 hour creation? ( 6X24= 144 hrs.) "Tribo" if the bible said it was created in 6 days then that's what we have to use unless it can be shown otherwise ..also I'm wondering why it took God so long to create creation ..since a God has 'Free Will" and therefore not control by the laws of physics and can alter reality in a blink of an eye it should have taken God no more than 6 blinks to create creation not 6 days .. I wonder how long it would have took "I Dream Of Jennie" or Samantha from 'Bewitched" to eye blink or nose wiggle creation into existence i agree Funches, but there are those hear that take the 144 hour creation as truth, eljay says it could mean a thousand years per day, TLW states that is a metaphor to really show that a day of rest was needed, so i have to know what is agreable to all here to discuss anthing further on the points i was making. sorry if you dont like it - tough funches!
fear not 'Tribo" this is a easy one to resolve the bible says that it took God 6 days to create creation ...anyone that believes in the bible have "no choice" but to approve it and anyone else has to debate the fact to dispute it ... since we are debating according to the bible then 6 days would mean 6 solar days or the bible would have specified otherwise |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
tribo
on
Fri 08/01/08 07:29 PM
|
|
ok eljay funches, let's step back a pace or two here, i have to find out if you believe the world was created in a literal 6 day-24 hr. period of time or not? In other-words do you hold to a literal - 144 hour creation? ( 6X24= 144 hrs.) "Tribo" if the bible said it was created in 6 days then that's what we have to use unless it can be shown otherwise ..also I'm wondering why it took God so long to create creation ..since a God has 'Free Will" and therefore not control by the laws of physics and can alter reality in a blink of an eye it should have taken God no more than 6 blinks to create creation not 6 days .. I wonder how long it would have took "I Dream Of Jennie" or Samantha from 'Bewitched" to eye blink or nose wiggle creation into existence i agree Funches, but there are those hear that take the 144 hour creation as truth, eljay says it could mean a thousand years per day, TLW states that is a metaphor to really show that a day of rest was needed, so i have to know what is agreable to all here to discuss anthing further on the points i was making. sorry if you dont like it - tough funches!
fear not 'Tribo" this is a easy one to resolve the bible says that it took God 6 days to create creation ...anyone that believes in the bible have "no choice" but to approve it and anyone else has to debate the fact to dispute it ... since we are debating according to the bible then 6 days would mean 6 solar days or the bible would have specified otherwise that's just it Funches, the bible does state in the psalms and in peter that a day is like a thousand years to god, and again, the evening watch is like a thousand years - so it actually could mean each day is 2000 yrs. thats strictly from the book. So again it can be argued from those 3 standpoints internally. 144hours (6 literal days), 1000 yrs or 2000 yrs per god day.but i have to know what everyone who is discussing believes firstly to continue forward with my thoughts on the subject - agreed? II Peter 3-8, psalm 90-4 KJV |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
that's just it Funches, the bible does state in the psalms and in peter that a day is like a thousand years to god, and again, the evening watch is like a thousand years - so it actually could mean each day is 2000 yrs. thats strictly from the book. So again it can be argued from those 3 standpoints internally. 144hours (6 literal days), 1000 yrs or 2000 yrs per god day.but i have to know what everyone who is discussing believes firstly to continue forward with my thoughts on the subject - agreed? II Peter 3-8, psalm 90-4 KJV peter said that a day to God is like a thousand years and that a thousand years to God is like a day ..that only mean that the concept of time doesn't apply to God but does apply to us and that statment wasn't meant to claim that a day was anything more then what Gensis described it to be...a day |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
that's just it Funches, the bible does state in the psalms and in peter that a day is like a thousand years to god, and again, the evening watch is like a thousand years - so it actually could mean each day is 2000 yrs. thats strictly from the book. So again it can be argued from those 3 standpoints internally. 144hours (6 literal days), 1000 yrs or 2000 yrs per god day.but i have to know what everyone who is discussing believes firstly to continue forward with my thoughts on the subject - agreed? II Peter 3-8, psalm 90-4 KJV peter said that a day to God is like a thousand years and that a thousand years to God is like a day ..that only mean that the concept of time doesn't apply to God but does apply to us and that statment wasn't meant to claim that a day was anything more then what Genesis described it to be...a day well now we have another opinion, so tell you what, til all have decided on this or until everyone takes your statement to be the one they will go by, ill just sit back and read the others funches. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
funches:
remember God also had two or three of every animal aboard the ark so he may have flooded the entire world to make sure that he destroyed all the other animals or insects and those humans they may have unintentionally drifted to another land and to make sure that the underground caverns hiding the occasional Nephilim was flooded tribo: well actually it states there were seven pair of every clean animal [14] and 2 [1 male and one female] of the unclean? why save any unclean? hmmm? it could also be construed that there were only 7 of the clean depending on how you take the verses. either way there were at least 9 of each animal x how many animals?? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
well now we have another opinion, so tell you what, til all have decided on this or until everyone takes your statement to be the one they will go by, ill just sit back and read the others funches. "Tribo" the matter can be resolve by using simple logic...according to the bible time does not apply to God and in Genesis a day was not specified to be anything more than a day...also if you notice all the reference beyond Genesis as to what a day is came from those expressing how time does not apply to God also it shouldn't matter that everyone has to agree on a certain point for you to continue in the debate to express your point or view .. because the debate may lead to the conclusion that what everyone did agree on was in fact wrong ...and the debate may in fact change someone's or even everyone's point of view also the nature of the debate is not for everyone to agree .. the nature of the debate is to reach a logical conclusion that no one can dispute |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
funches
on
Fri 08/01/08 09:58 PM
|
|
tribo: well actually it states there were seven pair of every clean animal [14] and 2 [1 male and one female] of the unclean? why save any unclean? hmmm? well the animals and noah's and crew needed a kosher food source for those forty days it could also be construed that there were only 7 of the clean depending on how you take the verses. either way there were at least 9 of each animal x how many animals?? maybe some of the animals were pregnant with sextuplets ..but what's your point |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
tribo: well actually it states there were seven pair of every clean animal [14] and 2 [1 male and one female] of the unclean? why save any unclean? hmmm? well the animals and noah's and crew needed a kosher food source for those forty days it could also be construed that there were only 7 of the clean depending on how you take the verses. either way there were at least 9 of each animal x how many animals?? maybe some of the animals were pregnant with sextuplets ..but what's your point the size of the ark as to how much room x how many animals that existed. bed time back tomorrow. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the size of the ark as to how much room x how many animals that existed. bed time back tomorrow. heck I'm not even sure all the animals could have fitted on 4 or 5 Noah Arks but then again how many college students can fit into the now obsolete enclosed telephone booth or how many circus clowns can fit into a volkswagon or as in China how many people can the train officials shove into the el trains during their rush hour although it may be possible to calculate if all the animals could have fit on the ark with a mathematical equation certain variables must be included into the equation such as the name of every species of animal and the size and weight of each animal have to become a factor .. so 'Tribo" if you want to take on that Mathematical equation you will certainly make Bibical history or atleast be granted with your own Wikpedia page but if not maybe you should opt for going with what the bible say when it comes to Noah's Ark ...let's face it we may need Dr. Who time travel skills to figure out this one ..until then some things are going to have to be absolutes remaining unproven and at this point in time unprovable with the undisputable status of "according to the bible" |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is what it is......and that is all that it is......
He is who He is.....and will always BE |
|
|
|
|
